Candace Parker/Olympic team thread (merged threads)

[hoophuskee]

Not sure what you think is 'overblown'.

The pool of players from which the selection committee chooses the NT is truly elite. Their ability to put up impressive stats is unquestioned and can be very similar, as other comparison posts have shown. At that point the committee must look at less tangible factors that go into making a successful and winning team. Sienko gave his thoughts on those intangibles.

I agree in part - and in part I don't agree at all. For example, are some of the strengths of Nneka Ogwumike similar to EDD? They aren't. Parkers strengths imo are of high value that aren't possessed by other PF's. Her handle. She can get anywhere she wants to. OFC te committee said in soemmanner "That's not important to us." My question will always be-- "Why?" It's ELITE and better than any other pf. And it's a basic fundamental in all of basketball. With NNeke her strength of hustle doesn't trump EDd's. But imo what Parker brigns trumps Angel, Fowles and Catchings. We can do without Parker, Angel, Fowles and Catchings and still win. But why was her strength deemed "less important" in that as a handler and a very good passer she can set up ANY player.

Thus the "intangible thing" is hard to be measured. So what I'm saying is- it could be overblown. Nobody can be perfect measuring intangibles. Sometimes you can be totally wrong. And do we know if Geno agrees with no Parker? Suppose he wants her but the vote was 3-2? Who knows for certain what Geno wants other than when he said he wanted Bird and DT.

Nobody can answer right now with 100% certainty that Geno does not want Parker, can they?

 

[j66kicker]

Nobody can answer right now with 100% certainty that Geno does not want Parker, can they?

Suppose not, however don't you think if Geno had told the committee, "I want Parker", that she would be on the team right now?

 

[DaddyChoc]

Suppose not, however don't you think if Geno had told the committee, "I want Parker", that she would be on the team right now?

thats what he said about Bird and DT3, correct?

 

[j66kicker]

thats what he said about Bird and DT3, correct?

Who knows, but he told the world the other day that if Stewie got left off the team they'd still probably have the best chance to win the gold medal, but that if DT wasn't on the team they'd have a problem. So my guess would be "Yes"

 

[DaddyChoc]

Who knows, but he told the world the other day that if Stewie got left off the team they'd still probably have the best chance to win the gold medal, but that if DT wasn't on the team they'd have a problem. So my guess would be "Yes"

I thought he said he wouldnt coach if DT and Sue wasnt on the time... its been posted a few times around here recently

 

[j66kicker]

I thought he said he wouldnt coach if DT and Sue wasnt on the time... its been posted a few times around here recently

Saw that too, but I was referring to a different interview - possibly back around the time of the USAB camp in Storrs, but I saw it more recently than that.

 

[hoophuskee]

Suppose not, however don't you think if Geno had told the committee, "I want Parker", that she would be on the team right now?

There were actual quotes on the locked thread he said if DT and Bird weren't on the team he wasn't interested. He didn't say anything about Maya or Tina. Maybe he felt no chance they would be cut. So if he were to say about Parker- at what point do you think the committee might start to get frustrated with him? Do they have no say whatsoever? I want Parker. Then suppose they say "Okay we'll cut Maya." Then he says . . .

He already insisted on two players. How many more does he have the final say on vs the basketball committee? What's the number? He first adds two names. Then he has to do a3rd? Then what? a 4th? a 5th? He said TWO players specifically. If he gets Parker for 3, what if he hates the next player they cut?

And the point I was trying to make with the other poster is- people like you and me (I think we agree?), Parker belongs. So you and I aren't buying the stock answers of "intangibles and fit" should have trumped Parker unless we hear a better explanation, right? Or do you believe intangibles and fit are the reasons and deservedly Parker should have been cut? Sure it is "possible." But I don't "believe."

 

[Rixxx]

The way I see it,in her USAB "career", CP was a bench player with only three starts. Therefore the committee chose another bench player, EDD, instead of CP. Either way, USA wins the gold.

 

[UcMiami]

I keep coming back to the last three NTs (Geno's teams) and the playing time on those three teams and therefore the chemistry and trust developed:
Current team 3 NTs played:
DT - 2010 - 9 games played, 9 starts; 2012 8 games played, 8 starts; 2014 6 games played 6 starts - 23 games 23 starts
Sue - 23 games 23 starts
Moore - 23 games 13 starts
Charles - 23 games 18 starts
Whalen - 23 games 0 starts
McCoughtry - 23 games 0 starts
Current team 2 NTs played:
Catchings - 2010 - 9 games 9 starts; 2012 - 8 games 8 starts; 2014 injured - 17 games 17 starts
Fowles - 2010 - 9 games 3 starts; 2012 - 5 games 0 starts; 2014 - injured - 14 games 3 starts
Augustus - 2010 - Injured; 2012 - 8 games 0 starts; 6 games 0 starts - 14 games 0 starts
Current team 1 NT played:
Griner - 2014 - 6 games 6 starts
Stewart - 2014 - 6 games 0 starts
Rookie: EDD - reigning WNBA POY
Not on the team but in the pool:
Dupree - 2010 9 games played 5 starts; 2012 - not selected; 2014 6 games 0 starts - 15 games 5 starts
Parker - 2012 8 games 3 starts
Nneka - 2014 6 games 0 starts
Sims - 2014 6 games 0 starts (returning from injury)

 

[j66kicker]

And the point I was trying to make with the other poster is- people like you and me (I think we agree?), Parker belongs. So you and I aren't buying the stock answers of "intangibles and fit" should have trumped Parker unless we hear a better explanation, right? Or do you believe intangibles and fit are the reasons and deservedly Parker should have been cut? Sure it is "possible." But I don't "believe."

I was surprised she didn't make the team, but at this point I don't agree or disagree that she should have. Whatever the reason, I think "tangible" vs. "intangible" is subjective, as is "deservedly." To those deciders and influencers who didn't feel the team needed her, they probably considered their reasons "tangible" and "deserved." Candace probably does not.

Additional speculation because I don't know what's in her head, but I'm guessing that her posting that video shows that she feels UCONN bias, or anti-TN bias, had something to do with it. I also suspect that's not really case which, if true, would mean she might have some self-awareness issues.

Anyway, what you or I think makes no difference. We're just on the outside looking in.

 

[UcMiami]

I agree in part - and in part I don't agree at all. For example, are some of the strengths of Nneka Ogwumike similar to EDD? They aren't. Parkers strengths imo are of high value that aren't possessed by other PF's. Her handle. She can get anywhere she wants to. OFC te committee said in soemmanner "That's not important to us." My question will always be-- "Why?" It's ELITE and better than any other pf. And it's a basic fundamental in all of basketball. With NNeke her strength of hustle doesn't trump EDd's. But imo what Parker brigns trumps Angel, Fowles and Catchings. We can do without Parker, Angel, Fowles and Catchings and still win. But why was her strength deemed "less important" in that as a handler and a very good passer she can set up ANY player.

Thus the "intangible thing" is hard to be measured. So what I'm saying is- it could be overblown. Nobody can be perfect measuring intangibles. Sometimes you can be totally wrong. And do we know if Geno agrees with no Parker? Suppose he wants her but the vote was 3-2? Who knows for certain what Geno wants other than when he said he wanted Bird and DT.

Nobody can answer right now with 100% certainty that Geno does not want Parker, can they?

From 10 feet and in Griner and a healthy Fowles are better, from 15 feet in, Charles' handle and strength is better which is a significant aspect in international play more than in the WNBA, from 15 feet out Moore, and Catchings are better (and better threats to shoot the 3) and they are pretty good from 15 feet in as well and from 15 feet out EDD is in the conversation as well. Perhaps Parker is the most versatile from the arc to the rim on offense and maybe even on defense, but I would not say she is the best in any one of the individual zones. In that respect I would compare her to Stewart - not the best in any one area of the floor but very good in each area.

I agree we have no idea what Geno's preference was and that Parker is both versatile and very talented.
Specific to Angel and Catchings (and Augustus) - they are better perimeter defenders and better perimeter scores and the team is light on guards/wings so that is what they can provide that Candace is not great at.
Specific to Fowles (and Charles and Griner) on offense and defense in half court sets she is better from 10 feet in than Candace and much stronger and better able to handle international centers.

If you are putting together a normal team with 5 really good starters and maybe a couple of sixth men types, and then developmental and filler players, having a really talented player that is really good from the arc to the rim is a huge bonus especially for a 30+ game season. If you are putting together a USA NT team of 10 great starters and 2 developmental very talented players, then choosing great players that are more specialized in particular areas of the floor for specific teams in an 8 game tournament may make more sense.

I agree about Catchings vs. Parker this year - if the only consideration was the actual product on the floor I think Catchings is not as good a choice as Parker, but given everything Catchings has meant to WBB and the USA team and her still considerable talent and skill, I can understand completely why she is on this team. I think for the actual players and not the fan base, it would have been more shocking if Catchings were left off this team.

 

[DaddyChoc]

I wouldnt have been shocked if Catchings didnt make it, I thought she said the last one was her last one but...

 

[CocoHusky]

Could not disagree more. If the best 5 players in the WNBA are all centers, are they your starters? What if they are all guards?

Nope, you put together the best team. For whatever reason that did not include Parker this go round. Maybe it will in four years.

Huh?

 

[UConnNick]

As good a player as Parker is, she wasn't picked. Nobody will likely ever know for sure why she wasn't. But it indicates that even if she were, she was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster. I think there are at least five other players you could pick for those and none of them would likely be a mistake. Parker was competing with a pool of other players, probably all but a small few of which are more than talented enough to be on the team. She wasn't competing to be a starter, so it seems kind of ridiculous to analyze her omission under a microscope.

Somebody has to get left out. It's a numbers game. All these arguments about so-called "UConn bias" miss this point. There are some other UConn players that could have filled those slots. Sure, if Tara VanDerveer or some other high profile coach were the USA team coach they might be inclined to want to load their team with their own former players. That's the way it works. That's why a committee makes the selections, to guard against that happening.

If VanDerveer was the coach and Taurasi was left off the team, she would get blamed like Geno gets blamed for having teams with half or almost half UConn players. Should it be Geno's own fault that he produces a disproportionate number of the most elite level players on earth? Why should he have to apologize to anybody for having five or six of his former players on the Olympic team? When they ask him to coach the team it's his perogative to suggest who he thinks will give the team the best chance to win it all, same as it would be for any other coach. It just happens to be his turn right now. Next time it might be somebody else's.

 

[hoophuskee]

I was surprised she didn't make the team, but at this point I don't agree or disagree that she should have. Whatever the reason, I think "tangible" vs. "intangible" is subjective, as is "deservedly." To those deciders and influencers who didn't feel the team needed her, they probably considered their reasons "tangible" and "deserved." Candace probably does not.

Additional speculation because I don't know what's in her head, but I'm guessing that her posting that video shows that she feels UCONN bias, or anti-TN bias, had something to do with it. I also suspect that's not really case which, if true, would mean she might have some self-awareness issues.

Anyway, what you or I think makes no difference. We're just on the outside looking in.

Sure it's subjective. And imo Parker deservedly belongs on the team unless I hear a valid reason otherwise. Many of us alos make predcitiosn on who starts. Wt type fo recwe should go after etc. All of our opinions "make no difference." Buin this case it's fun to make a stand for me. And I think the comments made by Callan was BS. I'm not "mad" about it. Just my opinion and fmo the Ct Sun Mgr-- it sounds a bit like way over-thinking. That has been done before in sports. I'm not saying it is. Just saying it sounds like.

Again - I wonder how all of us Husky fans will feel four years from now when another coach comes in and doesn't put in Maya or Stewart or maybe even Mojeff etc and say that she doesn't fit and there are all fo these "intangible issues." I don't believe it now (though I can change my mind) and I won't believe it in the future (unless I learn of something that makes me agree.).

 

[hoophuskee]

From 10 feet and in Griner and a healthy Fowles are better, from 15 feet in, Charles' handle and strength is better which is a significant aspect in international play more than in the WNBA, from 15 feet out Moore, and Catchings are better (and better threats to shoot the 3) and they are pretty good from 15 feet in as well and from 15 feet out EDD is in the conversation as well. Perhaps Parker is the most versatile from the arc to the rim on offense and maybe even on defense, but I would not say she is the best in any one of the individual zones. In that respect I would compare her to Stewart - not the best in any one area of the floor but very good in each area.

I agree we have no idea what Geno's preference was and that Parker is both versatile and very talented.
Specific to Angel and Catchings (and Augustus) - they are better perimeter defenders and better perimeter scores and the team is light on guards/wings so that is what they can provide that Candace is not great at.
Specific to Fowles (and Charles and Griner) on offense and defense in half court sets she is better from 10 feet in than Candace and much stronger and better able to handle international centers.

If you are putting together a normal team with 5 really good starters and maybe a couple of sixth men types, and then developmental and filler players, having a really talented player that is really good from the arc to the rim is a huge bonus especially for a 30+ game season. If you are putting together a USA NT team of 10 great starters and 2 developmental very talented players, then choosing great players that are more specialized in particular areas of the floor for specific teams in an 8 game tournament may make more sense.

I agree about Catchings vs. Parker this year - if the only consideration was the actual product on the floor I think Catchings is not as good a choice as Parker, but given everything Catchings has meant to WBB and the USA team and her still considerable talent and skill, I can understand completely why she is on this team. I think for the actual players and not the fan base, it would have been more shocking if Catchings were left off this team.

Tina Charles is a better center than Fowles. Totality of the game- Tina is terrific defensively and offensively. Looking at their entire game Tina is better and I would take her over Fowles at center or power forward. This doesn't mean Fowles is not good. Fowles is terrific but Tina is better.

As for Parker she has superior handle and finishng (what I mean by "finishing" I mean as a slasher she is a better finisher) than Maya or EDD. Catchings has same real good handle or maybe better handle but imo doesn't fisnih as well as Parker. Parker averaged over 6.3 assits a game and just 2.5 trunovers. That is far superior to Catchings because she can create more at this point in her career. I remember Geno saying a player that gets 2.5 tiems more assists vs turnovers that is outstanding (not that I needed him to tell me that). No even the great Maya or EDD have those assist to turnover numbers. Parker isn't averaging over 6 assists a game because she is only low posting and then gets doubled off of that. She's a slasher with the ball in her hands and could easily feed EDD and DT for 3point shots. Parker's handle for her size and her ability to pass (as indicated by assists vs turnovers) is exceptional and stands out over any 3/4 player regarding THAT specific skill.

And I don't think BS belongs in this conversation. I reserve the right to change my mind!! I'd be extremely surprised if you saw BS get decent minutes vs a team that threatens Team USA.

IMO part of the issue with Parker is that she is more of a "dribbler." Many of us-- me included don't really like "the dribbler." And Tina, and Maya and EDD - they aren't "dribblers" though Tina and EDD can back their defender. They can dribble certainly and slash" but they aren't that. Parker is-- which makes her unique. maya can slahst not really a slasher. Though she is similar to Catchings in that regard. I know what I've seen in both the WNBA and wh tI'v seen in 2012 Olympics.

Geno's "genius" moved her to the 6th man. For this particular team imo -- she would be spectacular in that role. I saw it in 2012. No power forward can run a break like she can while being a threat to finish while having her type of handle. Get her at the top of the key, or at the ftl line, she is a filthy triple-threat that can become more dangerous with shooters surrounding her. I'm not saying she plays "30" minutes. But imo if there was anyone you can look at and say "That player can change the momentum" coming off the bench, Parker would be that.

If she wouldn't accept being 6th man, then for me no problem you are off the team. Her dribbling, a basketball fundamental, is tremendous for her size and I can't believe it can't be utilized while she has shooters surrounding her at three other positions.

 

[hoophuskee]

As good a player as Parker is, she wasn't picked. Nobody will likely ever know for sure why she wasn't. But it indicates that even if she were, she was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster. I think there are at least five other players you could pick for those and none of them would likely be a mistake. Parker was competing with a pool of other players, probably all but a small few of which are more than talented enough to be on the team. She wasn't competing to be a starter, so it seems kind of ridiculous to analyze her omission under a microscope.

Somebody has to get left out. It's a numbers game. All these arguments about so-called "UConn bias" miss this point. There are some other UConn players that could have filled those slots. Sure, if Tara VanDerveer or some other high profile coach were the USA team coach they might be inclined to want to load their team with their own former players. That's the way it works. That's why a committee makes the selections, to guard against that happening.

If VanDerveer was the coach and Taurasi was left off the team, she would get blamed like Geno gets blamed for having teams with half or almost half UConn players. Should it be Geno's own fault that he produces a disproportionate number of the most elite level players on earth? Why should he have to apologize to anybody for having five or six of his former players on the Olympic team? When they ask him to coach the team it's his perogative to suggest who he thinks will give the team the best chance to win it all, same as it would be for any other coach. It just happens to be his turn right now. Next time it might be somebody else's.

I'm not sure the significance of Parker competing for spot 11 or 12. If she was on the team, do you think she is at the bottom (11/12) for getting minutes?

Sure Tara V can do. This can continue. It doesn't happen on the men's side- not that it matters- but what if you want it to be as close as possible for putting out the best team and don't like how a random committee might overlook a player maybe for non-basketball reasons? Or if they just made a mistake such as over-analyzing a situation and/or an opponent?

 

[UcMiami]

Hoophuskee - Parker has only 'averaged' 6.3 assists per game for the last 16 games she has played. That is a pretty small sample size - for her career she averages 3.6 assist per game with 2.6 TOs per game for a 1.4 A/TO ratio. The half year she played last year was impressive, and she has been improving her assists while keeping her TOs under control in the last three years, but at the moment 6.3 is a completely aberrational number. We'll see if she can maintain a number anywhere close to that for a full 30 game season. I disagree that she has a better handle on the perimeter than Moore and she certainly isn't a better jump shooter, but she is a better finisher at the rim than Moore which is what I said.

 

[CocoHusky]

As good a player as Parker is, she wasn't picked. Nobody will likely ever know for sure why she wasn't. But it indicates that even if she were, she was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster. I think there are at least five other players you could pick for those and none of them would likely be a mistake. Parker was competing with a pool of other players, probably all but a small few of which are more than talented enough to be on the team. She wasn't competing to be a starter, so it seems kind of ridiculous to analyze her omission under a microscope.

Somebody has to get left out. It's a numbers game. All these arguments about so-called "UConn bias" miss this point. There are some other UConn players that could have filled those slots. Sure, if Tara VanDerveer or some other high profile coach were the USA team coach they might be inclined to want to load their team with their own former players. That's the way it works. That's why a committee makes the selections, to guard against that happening.

If VanDerveer was the coach and Taurasi was left off the team, she would get blamed like Geno gets blamed for having teams with half or almost half UConn players. Should it be Geno's own fault that he produces a disproportionate number of the most elite level players on earth? Why should he have to apologize to anybody for having five or six of his former players on the Olympic team? When they ask him to coach the team it's his perogative to suggest who he thinks will give the team the best chance to win it all, same as it would be for any other coach. It just happens to be his turn right now. Next time it might be somebody else's.

What is being sought from the committe (not Geno) is an explanation NOT an apology. There are clearly NOT 4 or 5 "other" players that would have been competing for spot a spot on the Olympic team because the process is by invitation and down selection. CP got an invitation and was down selected to the final cut.
Even if CP "was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster" as you state that is a competition she is more than capable of winning. If CP lost an explanation from the selection committee would still be required.

 

[UcMiami]

What is being sought from the committe (not Geno) is an explanation NOT an apology. There are clearly NOT 4 or 5 "other" players that would have been competing for spot a spot on the Olympic team because the process is by invitation and down selection. CP got an invitation and was down selected to the final cut.
Even if CP "was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster" as you state that is a competition she is more than capable of winning. If CP lost an explanation from the selection committee would still be required.

Again I will say the sentence that begins with 'We did not select Parker because ________' does not end well for anyone involved - Parker or the committee. And the sentence 'It came down to Parker or _____ and we selected _______ because ...' also does not end well for anyone, Parker, the committee, or _______.
The first sentence no doubt gets into reasons that have possibly been communicated privately to Parker, but likely include a critique of her game, her attitude, whatever, that are best kept private.
The second sentence disrespects those who were named to the team by implying one of them was the last selection and opens them up to comparative speculation that is just not fair to them and is likely meaningless because it was never about just two players head to head, it was about the balance and mix of 12 players on a team and probably included a review of Parker vs multiple other players selected.

 

[CocoHusky]

Again I will saywho could the sentence that begins with 'We did not select Parker because ________' does not end well for anyone involved - Parker or the committee. And the sentence 'It came down to Parker or _____ and we selected _______ because ...' also does not end well for anyone, Parker, the committee, or _______.
The first sentence no doubt gets into reasons that have possibly been communicated privately to Parker, but likely include a critique of her game, her attitude, whatever, that are best kept private.
The second sentence disrespects those who were named to the team by implying one of them was the last selection and opens them up to comparative speculation that is just not fair to them and is likely meaningless because it was never about just two players head to head, it was about the balance and mix of 12 players on a team and probably included a review of Parker vs multiple other players selected.

The explanation does not have to start or end the way you are suggesting nor does it have to included any specific names nor disrespect anyone. The committee's only statement on the matter is the opposite of balance given that they pointed to PF being the "strength" of the team and implied that was the reason for the exclusion of CP.
Try this:
Statement: The committee placed a priority of 3 point shooting because the international game demands floor spacing.
Translation: Stewie and EDD are better 3pt shooter than CP.
Statement: The committee also want to ensure that the 2016 team included players that would gain the required experience to be foundation players for future international competition.
Translation: CP is likely not going to be around in 2020 but Stewie and EDD are probably going to be starting.

I fully realize that these statements are political and generic and kind of the opposite of what I've been advocating but I think far better than the current swirl. This was an opportunity for the committee to practice good PR and proper HR management and it did both poorly IMO. As a hiring manager for the guy that does not get the job you provide enough information but you do not deflate. It is the difference between saying we wanted more experience in this technology & saying nothing thus leaving the potential employee & in this case the public bewildered.

 

[msf22b]

The problem with your argument UC, is that the committee's decision was aberrant
I understand their problem in explaining the inexplicable.
But in this case, they must at least try.
Failure to do so deepens a feeling of mistrust and whatever else...politics, favoritism, bias
That have led to the present uproar.

Coco's suggestion is a good starting point; perhaps the answer.

 

[UConnNick]

What is being sought from the committe (not Geno) is an explanation NOT an apology. There are clearly NOT 4 or 5 "other" players that would have been competing for spot a spot on the Olympic team because the process is by invitation and down selection. CP got an invitation and was down selected to the final cut.
Even if CP "was clearly competing for spot No. 11 or even 12 on the roster" as you state that is a competition she is more than capable of winning. If CP lost an explanation from the selection committee would still be required.

Why should all the players who don't get picked be entitled to an explanation from the committee? If Parker is entitled to an explanation then so are the other several players that didn't get picked. That's absurd. And, to the extent Geno or any other coach has some influence over the committee regarding selections, asking for an explanation from the committee for why any particular player or players weren't picked is the same as asking the coach for his or her opinions about each non-selected player.

 

[CocoHusky]

Why should all the players who don't get picked be entitled to an explanation from the committee? If Parker is entitled to an explanation then so are the other several players that didn't get picked. That's absurd. And, to the extent Geno or any other coach has some influence over the committee regarding selections, asking for an explanation from the committee for why any particular player or players weren't picked is the same as asking the coach for his or her opinions about each non-selected player.

Not absurd at all. I never said every player not selected is entitled to an explanation. CP is entitled to an explanation because she has been part of USA basketball since 2004 & and is still regarded as one of the top 3 players in the world. If any top 5 player in the world did not make their country's Olympic team I would be saying the same thing. Geno is not part of the selection committee therefore for the 3rd time-NO Explanation from Geno is required.

 

[msf22b]

Why should all the players who don't get picked be entitled to an explanation from the committee? If Parker is entitled to an explanation then so are the other several players that didn't get picked. That's absurd. And, to the extent Geno or any other coach has some influence over the committee regarding selections, asking for an explanation from the committee for why any particular player or players weren't picked is the same as asking the coach for his or her opinions about each non-selected player.

See my post above
This is a special case
Parker is considered (by most accounts) one of the top-5 players in the world.
Imagine if Maya was not picked.
Aside from the uproar, would not a explanation be demanded?